FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION
OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

In the Matter of a Complaint by FINAL DECISION
Santo Franzo,  
  Complainant  
  against   Docket #FIC 2004-536

Chief, Volunteer Fire Department,

Town of Columbia,

 
  Respondent  June 8, 2005
       

 

The above-captioned matter was heard as a contested case on April 14, 2005, at which time the complainant and the respondent appeared and presented testimony, exhibits and argument on the complaint. 

           

After consideration of the entire record, the following facts are found and conclusions of law are reached:

 

1.  The respondent is a public agency within the meaning of 1-200(1), G.S.

 

2.  By letter of complaint dated November 20, 2004, and filed November 29, 2004, the complainant appealed to the Commission, alleging that the respondent violated the Freedom of Information Act by denying him copies of certain records, more fully described in paragraph 3, below.

 

3.  It is found that by letter dated November 11, 2004, the complainant requested that the respondent provide him with copies of the following records:

 

i.                     personnel rules and regulations;

ii.                   the respondent department’s “policy on people with disabilities compliance practices” for volunteers who want to join; and

iii.                  minutes of the November 10th 2004 meeting.

 

4.  It is found that the request was sent by certified mail and received by the respondent.[1]

 

 5.  It is found that neither the respondent nor any member of the Columbia Volunteer Fire Department responded to the request.

 

6.  Section 1-210(a), G.S., provides, in relevant part:

 

Except as otherwise provided by any federal law or state statute, all records maintained or kept on file by any public agency, whether or not such records are required by any law or by any rule or regulation, shall be public records and every person shall have the right to …(3) receive a copy of such records in accordance with section 1-212….

 

7.  With respect to the request, as described in paragraph 3i) and 3iii), above, it is found that the respondent maintains records responsive to such request, and such records are public records within the meaning of 1-210(a), G.S.

 

8.  At the hearing in this matter, the respondent provided the complainant with a copy of the records responsive to the request, as described in paragraph 3i) and 3iii), above.  It is found that the respondent did not previously provide the complainant with the records described herein based on a belief that such records were exempt from disclosure.

 

9.  It is found that the respondent failed to promptly provide the complainant with the records described in paragraph 8, above, and therefore, violated 1-210(a), G.S.

 

10.  With respect to the request, as described in paragraph 3ii), above, it is found that no record exists that is responsive to such request.

 

11.  It is therefore concluded that the respondent did not violate 1-210(a), G.S., with respect to the request, as described in paragraph 3ii), above.

The following order by the Commission is hereby recommended on the basis of the record concerning the above-captioned complaint:

1.  Henceforth, the respondent shall strictly comply with the promptness provision of 1-210(a), G.S

 

Approved by Order of the Freedom of Information Commission at its regular meeting of June 8, 2005.

 

________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission


PURSUANT TO SECTION 4-180(c), G.S., THE FOLLOWING ARE THE NAMES OF EACH PARTY AND THE MOST RECENT MAILING ADDRESS, PROVIDED TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION COMMISSION, OF THE PARTIES OR THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

 

THE PARTIES TO THIS CONTESTED CASE ARE:

 

Santo Franzo

181 Pine Street

Columbia, CT 06237

 

Chief, Volunteer Fire Department,

Town of Columbia

c/o Roberto T. Lucheme, Esq.

41 Hebron Avenue

Glastonbury, CT 06033

 

 

 

___________________________________

Petrea A. Jones

Acting Clerk of the Commission

 

 

 

FIC/2004-536FD/paj/6/10/2005

 

                                                                                               

 



[1] At the hearing in this matter the respondent could not recall the date the request was received but acknowledged that the request was in fact received.